Yesterday's Evening Standard carried an article by Tristram Hunt MP, Shadow Secretary for Education, everybody's favourite left-wing historian and all-round pontificator on matters educational and cultural. He was apparently replying to the Director of the British Museum, Neil McGregor, who has indicated that the famous domed room might be turned into a permanent exhibition gallery.
Do not do this, says Mr Hunt, do not destroy this great institution, where such people as Karl Marx read and studied (not necessarily a recommendation), especially as libraries are closing down all round the country.
Setting aside the argument about local libraries, many of whom spend more money on computer outlets than on books, the article seems to be a little out of date as is the one in the Independent. It is quite true that when, after the British Library's move to St Pancras, the Reading Room re-opened in its refurbished form, it retained the old desks arranged in spokes and the shelves, which housed a large collection of books that could be consulted.
For some years now, however, the room, domed as it is, has been occupied by various large exhibitions, such as the one about Pompeii and Herculaneum. The desks and bookshelves that Mr Hunt and other commentators are talking about have not been there for all this time. (Though Allan Massie seems to be aware of this fact.) The reason the subject has now come up again is because the British Museum has acquired a large new exhibition space where the Viking ship and artefacts were displayed (a dull exhibition, in my opinion) and other blockbusters will be as well. The Reading Room is no longer needed for those special exhibitions and some thought needs to be given as to what is to be done with it.
It can be restored to its original design and turned into a kind of a library though that will not be a substitute for local libraries which might have closed down or might simply have forgotten that libraries should be about books. But one thing is certain: it is not and has not been for some time a library or a reading room.
So Mr Hunt, Shadow Secretary of State for Education and all-purpose pontificator, when did you last visit the British Museum?
Showing posts with label Evening Standard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evening Standard. Show all posts
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Shock: the CBI is wrong again
Because I find everything to do with the EU and, especially, the discussions conducted on various sites and threads unutterably tedious I tend to fall behind in my coverage of it. So, yes, I know this is yesterday's news but I think I have something to add.
Monday's Evening Standard had one or two articles that I sort of read. Doesn't happen every day. Except for Fay Maschler's articles on most Wednesdays, Brian Sewell's on many Thursdays or the film reviews on all Fridays, I tend to flip through that paper, maybe do the word games and take it home to line the cat litter tray. That sort of attitude in readers does not inspire the advertisers and, unsurprisingly, the Standard works hard to overcome it.
The front page was full of dire warnings from Thames Water about how we should use less water or pay more for it. I noticed that there was no mention of the amount of water that is lost because Thames Water's ability to keep the pipes in reasonable condition is negligible. The Standard's editorial chipped in, saying, ha-ha-ha, how unfortunate it was that the rain started as soon as the newspaper with that story came out but, really, we live in a fairly dry climate that is getting drier all the time. No figures were given, of course, and to nobody's surprise there followed about 12 hours of steady rain with interruptions of downpour.
Nobody knows how this happens but everybody has noticed that whenever there are comments or predictions about heat, drought or just a drier climate, the skies open and people gloomily start thinking about arks. The whole thing is as hard to explain as it is to answer the obvious question as to what is the outcome of the Standard's worthy but endless campaigns.
Do more children leave primary schools being able to read and write? Has (relative) poverty been abolished in London? Are gangs a things of the past? Who can tell? Since most of these campaigns approach the same problems from different angles, the suspicion remains that apart from a few isolated cases of success (and one cheers for them, of course) they get absolutely nowhere. In which case, we ought to know what happens to the very large sums raised by the newspaper.
Enough of these digressions. The other article that caught my eye was by John Cridland, Director-General of the CBI, whose pronouncement ahead of that organization's conference, much touted everywhere, was that the UK has to stay in the EU but that the EU must reform. I could find no mention of airborne pigs.
It is quite extraordinary that the arguments organizations like the CBI trotted out to prove that Britain had to join the euro and which have been proved to be absolute nonsense are now trotted out to prove that Britain has to stay in the EU. Why are we even listening to these people? By no stretch of the imagination can the CBI be said to represent British business in its majority, let alone its entirety.
At this point I think I should remind my readers of the posting about that doughty fighter against the CBI and its economical attitude to the truth, Brigadier Anthony Cowgill.
Monday's Evening Standard had one or two articles that I sort of read. Doesn't happen every day. Except for Fay Maschler's articles on most Wednesdays, Brian Sewell's on many Thursdays or the film reviews on all Fridays, I tend to flip through that paper, maybe do the word games and take it home to line the cat litter tray. That sort of attitude in readers does not inspire the advertisers and, unsurprisingly, the Standard works hard to overcome it.
The front page was full of dire warnings from Thames Water about how we should use less water or pay more for it. I noticed that there was no mention of the amount of water that is lost because Thames Water's ability to keep the pipes in reasonable condition is negligible. The Standard's editorial chipped in, saying, ha-ha-ha, how unfortunate it was that the rain started as soon as the newspaper with that story came out but, really, we live in a fairly dry climate that is getting drier all the time. No figures were given, of course, and to nobody's surprise there followed about 12 hours of steady rain with interruptions of downpour.
Nobody knows how this happens but everybody has noticed that whenever there are comments or predictions about heat, drought or just a drier climate, the skies open and people gloomily start thinking about arks. The whole thing is as hard to explain as it is to answer the obvious question as to what is the outcome of the Standard's worthy but endless campaigns.
Do more children leave primary schools being able to read and write? Has (relative) poverty been abolished in London? Are gangs a things of the past? Who can tell? Since most of these campaigns approach the same problems from different angles, the suspicion remains that apart from a few isolated cases of success (and one cheers for them, of course) they get absolutely nowhere. In which case, we ought to know what happens to the very large sums raised by the newspaper.
Enough of these digressions. The other article that caught my eye was by John Cridland, Director-General of the CBI, whose pronouncement ahead of that organization's conference, much touted everywhere, was that the UK has to stay in the EU but that the EU must reform. I could find no mention of airborne pigs.
It is quite extraordinary that the arguments organizations like the CBI trotted out to prove that Britain had to join the euro and which have been proved to be absolute nonsense are now trotted out to prove that Britain has to stay in the EU. Why are we even listening to these people? By no stretch of the imagination can the CBI be said to represent British business in its majority, let alone its entirety.
At this point I think I should remind my readers of the posting about that doughty fighter against the CBI and its economical attitude to the truth, Brigadier Anthony Cowgill.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Lord Leach in the Evening Standard
The Evening Standard has a thoroughly sycophantic whole-page interview with Rodney Leach, the chairman of that perestroika organization, Open Europe. Readers of this blog will know that I have some problems with Open Europe, not least the fact that they keep trying to explain how wonderful the EU would be if we could just reform it or change our status in it with nary an idea as to how this astonishing development could be achieved.
The interview starts with the following words:
In any case, the word "might" here is not used as a supposition or, in other words, the assumption is that Rodney Leach's campaign did ensure that Britain said ...... Oh really? I was under the impression that it was a combination of Sir James Goldsmith's Referendum Party and Gordon Brown's petulant but useful desire to stymie Tony Blair that ensured Britain's non-participation in the euro. It is true that Mr Leach's (as he then was) organization, Business for Sterling, helped to strengthen the already existing public dislike for the euro and he did manage to persuade some business leaders that staying out of what was clearly an economic disaster would be a good idea. However, as I once pointed out to one of Mr Leach's minions, it would have been then and would be now courteous and graceful to acknowledge the work done among business leaders to counter the CBI propaganda by the British Management Data Foundation and its founder, Brigadier Anthony Cowgill long before any Leach organization was even thought of.
As to saying nein to the European constitution, that is an even more doubtful proposition, as the Constitution for Europe was resurrected in the shape of the Lisbon Treaty and has been transmogrified into the Consolidated Treaties, published by the selfsame BMDF. Last I checked, the United Kingdom was still legally obliged to implement all its provisions.
The rest of the interview merely points out how incredibly sensible and influential Lord Leach is and how people are bound to listen to him, particularly as he wants to make sure that the EU's various directives and regulations are changed in order to save the City of London. Once again, we hear very little as to how that might be achieved but no doubt the bright boys and girls of Open Europe will explain it all to us in detail. I am not holding my breath.
Do read the article; it won't take long. But whether you do or you don't there is one thing that we must all remember: Open Europe together with a number of other supposedly eurosceptic organizations will use all its resources (and they are not to be sniffed at) to support the IN campaign, should there be a referendum on the subject.
The interview starts with the following words:
His campaigns might have ensured that Britain said non to the euro and nein to the European constitution, but Lord Leach of Fairford isn’t saying no to European Union membership this time around.To begin with saying non to the euro and nein to the European constitution (that, too, was more of a French project than a German one) was never the same as saying no to European Union membership. This is shoddy journalism but what can we expect from the Standard?
In any case, the word "might" here is not used as a supposition or, in other words, the assumption is that Rodney Leach's campaign did ensure that Britain said ...... Oh really? I was under the impression that it was a combination of Sir James Goldsmith's Referendum Party and Gordon Brown's petulant but useful desire to stymie Tony Blair that ensured Britain's non-participation in the euro. It is true that Mr Leach's (as he then was) organization, Business for Sterling, helped to strengthen the already existing public dislike for the euro and he did manage to persuade some business leaders that staying out of what was clearly an economic disaster would be a good idea. However, as I once pointed out to one of Mr Leach's minions, it would have been then and would be now courteous and graceful to acknowledge the work done among business leaders to counter the CBI propaganda by the British Management Data Foundation and its founder, Brigadier Anthony Cowgill long before any Leach organization was even thought of.
As to saying nein to the European constitution, that is an even more doubtful proposition, as the Constitution for Europe was resurrected in the shape of the Lisbon Treaty and has been transmogrified into the Consolidated Treaties, published by the selfsame BMDF. Last I checked, the United Kingdom was still legally obliged to implement all its provisions.
The rest of the interview merely points out how incredibly sensible and influential Lord Leach is and how people are bound to listen to him, particularly as he wants to make sure that the EU's various directives and regulations are changed in order to save the City of London. Once again, we hear very little as to how that might be achieved but no doubt the bright boys and girls of Open Europe will explain it all to us in detail. I am not holding my breath.
Do read the article; it won't take long. But whether you do or you don't there is one thing that we must all remember: Open Europe together with a number of other supposedly eurosceptic organizations will use all its resources (and they are not to be sniffed at) to support the IN campaign, should there be a referendum on the subject.
Friday, March 1, 2013
"Small earthquake"
Curiously enough, Nigel Farage, the Great Helmsman of UKIP, seems to be more rational about his party's achievement yesterday than many of the members and even the media whose endless repetition of the words UKIP and surge hide the fact that actually it did not go very far.
Mr Farage, on the other hand, is uncharacteristically modest in today's Evening Standard. Having in the past predicted repeatedly an earthquake in British politics caused by his party and throngs of Conservative MPs joining his party, on the day after UKIP had achieved its best result in a by-election, their Leader merely predicted an earthquake in next year's European elections.
By this, I assume he means that UKIP will come first among the parties. That is not unlikely as they came second last time.
All the same, a sitting MEP of some experience ought to know that even if UKIP wins every single British seat in the European Parliament (an inherently unlikely scenario) it will not make a scrap of difference to anything that happens in that body or in the European Union as a whole. He has said this frequently himself in that speech he has given up and down the country.
What was that headline Claud Cockburn invented: "Small earthquake in Chile. Not many dead."
Mr Farage, on the other hand, is uncharacteristically modest in today's Evening Standard. Having in the past predicted repeatedly an earthquake in British politics caused by his party and throngs of Conservative MPs joining his party, on the day after UKIP had achieved its best result in a by-election, their Leader merely predicted an earthquake in next year's European elections.
By this, I assume he means that UKIP will come first among the parties. That is not unlikely as they came second last time.
All the same, a sitting MEP of some experience ought to know that even if UKIP wins every single British seat in the European Parliament (an inherently unlikely scenario) it will not make a scrap of difference to anything that happens in that body or in the European Union as a whole. He has said this frequently himself in that speech he has given up and down the country.
What was that headline Claud Cockburn invented: "Small earthquake in Chile. Not many dead."
Friday, March 2, 2012
How long do we go on wasting money
A new charity has been set up to deal with the lack of numeracy among the British population, especially its children.
Poor numeracy means that basic economic factors remain a closed book to most people.
Poor numeracy means that any old rubbish produced by the Warmists, the Europhiliacs or the plain old statist banker-bashers is accepted without the slightest question by a hefty proportion of the population with politicians and the media cheerfully playing to the gallery.
In fact, this blog has already noted that City AM was starting a campaign to improve teaching of basic economics and suggested that Mr Gove's call at the time for maths teaching up to the age of 18 was misguided until the standards of teaching are improved.
I have also written about the campaign started by the Evening Standard to "get London reading", which called for volunteers to go into schools to teach children, for most of whom English is the first language, to read. Similar campaigns are being waged in other cities.
So there we are: in a country where many billions of pounds are spent on a national education system, where children start attending school earlier than in any other country and stay in compulsory, free at the point of delivery education for longer than in any other country, we are desperate for volunteers to teach basic literacy and numeracy because teachers apparently cannot be expected to do so. Is it not time we drew the obvious conclusion about our education system and about a large number of teachers who work in it?
While we are on the subject of London's schools I need to appeal to any reader who lives in London. Do NOT vote for Siobhan Benita, the former civil servant who happens to be female and rather photogenic, thus getting a good deal of media time and who has, therefore, been described as a radical. Actually, she is an old-fashioned left-wing statist who cannot envisage any system in which individuals or orgganizations of any kind are allowed to take any decisions for themselves. She is also remarkably ignorant about the role of the Mayor, preferring to run on the well-used ticket of "being against the white, male, middle class establishment". (I wonder how Ken Livingstone and Jenny Jones, the Green candidate, feel about that.) Oh yes, let me not forget that she is also a mother and used to work for Sir Gus O'Donnell.
If all the above had not disqualified her from being allowed anywhere near even a whelk stall, never mind a fishmonger, here is the clincher:
Poor numeracy is blighting Britain's economic performance and ruining lives, says a new charity launched to champion better maths skills. The group, National Numeracy, says millions of people struggle to understand a payslip or a train timetable, or pay a household bill. Government figures show almost half the working population of England have only primary school maths skills.Poor numeracy is, indeed, a problem at that very basic and other levels. Our engineering firms are struggling to find a sufficient number of British employees not because every foreign worker will take lower wages or work 20 hours a day but because our schools do not teach basic numeric skills without which it is impossible to study engineering.
A government spokeswoman said poor numeracy was a national scandal.
The new organisation quotes from research suggesting weak maths skills are linked with an array of poor life outcomes such as prison, unemployment, exclusion from school, poverty and long-term illness.
Poor numeracy means that basic economic factors remain a closed book to most people.
Poor numeracy means that any old rubbish produced by the Warmists, the Europhiliacs or the plain old statist banker-bashers is accepted without the slightest question by a hefty proportion of the population with politicians and the media cheerfully playing to the gallery.
In fact, this blog has already noted that City AM was starting a campaign to improve teaching of basic economics and suggested that Mr Gove's call at the time for maths teaching up to the age of 18 was misguided until the standards of teaching are improved.
I have also written about the campaign started by the Evening Standard to "get London reading", which called for volunteers to go into schools to teach children, for most of whom English is the first language, to read. Similar campaigns are being waged in other cities.
So there we are: in a country where many billions of pounds are spent on a national education system, where children start attending school earlier than in any other country and stay in compulsory, free at the point of delivery education for longer than in any other country, we are desperate for volunteers to teach basic literacy and numeracy because teachers apparently cannot be expected to do so. Is it not time we drew the obvious conclusion about our education system and about a large number of teachers who work in it?
While we are on the subject of London's schools I need to appeal to any reader who lives in London. Do NOT vote for Siobhan Benita, the former civil servant who happens to be female and rather photogenic, thus getting a good deal of media time and who has, therefore, been described as a radical. Actually, she is an old-fashioned left-wing statist who cannot envisage any system in which individuals or orgganizations of any kind are allowed to take any decisions for themselves. She is also remarkably ignorant about the role of the Mayor, preferring to run on the well-used ticket of "being against the white, male, middle class establishment". (I wonder how Ken Livingstone and Jenny Jones, the Green candidate, feel about that.) Oh yes, let me not forget that she is also a mother and used to work for Sir Gus O'Donnell.
If all the above had not disqualified her from being allowed anywhere near even a whelk stall, never mind a fishmonger, here is the clincher:
She is at her most passionate on education, and even if it is technically beyond the remit of Mayor of London, she says she is committed to reform in London. She is no fan of academies and "unfair" choices.It strikes me from those and some other paragraphs that even the Evening Standard is beginning to tire of her performance. Let us hope she is soundly trounced.
She says that grammar schools do not lift up the less well-off: "At the moment we have a system where if you can pay to tutor your kids - which is what most people do - and move into an area where the schools are good, then you're fine.
And if not, you're left behind. I say choice doesn't work. I don't think you should stop as Mayor until you're saying that every school in London needs to be excellent."
Thursday, October 22, 2009
From the frontline
White City, which is just down the road from me, seems to have become the frontline in the struggle between national and international socialism. When I went past TV Centre just after midday on my way to the post office (to collect a copy of “The Best Seat in the House – the Wit and Parliamentary Chronicles of Frank Johnson”) bleary-eyed members of the Socialist Workers’ Party, representatives of international socialism whose electoral support wavers between nil and ten per constituency, were setting up their stalls and rather half-heartedly trying to buttonhole people and get them to sign a petition. They were not very successful – in Shepherds Bush and White City we get very agile in avoiding bores who try to hand us something, get us to sign something or harangue us about something.
All the same, I wish they had stopped me. I was longing to ask them why they disliked the BNP’s collectivist agenda. Ah well, maybe when I go out again to head towards the BBC Russian Service where we shall be discussing … yes, you’ve guessed it …. the BNP.
So there were about two dozen all together, manning and womanning stalls and demonstrating with placards, easily outnumbered by media photographers and cameramen. The local police was gathering in numbers and the helicopters are flying as I write. Any excuse will do to play with nice toys. One can but hope that no gang killings are scheduled for this afternoon or evening.
At present, international socialism may think it is winning the propaganda battle but it is national socialism that has representatives in one or two elected assemblies and whose leader is on Question Time.
I am not convinced even about the propaganda battle. Peter Hain’s announcement that the BBC was acting illegally by inviting Nick Griffin was not only swatted aside by lawyers but was greeted with derision by the few people who were paying attention. Presumably, he was fulfilling his usual role of the pit canary. It is always our Peter who makes some outlandish pronouncement while the Labour leadership watches. If there is an outcry, he is disowned as it happened this time.
It is sad to see Conservatives getting involved in this fight and giving the BNP extra amounts of publicity in the process. Nothing British, a slightly odd organization, that is dedicated to proving that there is nothing British about the BNP even organized a breakfast this morning (a terrible idea, in my opinion) to proclaim this fact. When the invitation arrived yesterday I thought it was going to be a breakfast at which no British food was going to be served and was about to direct them towards some excellent British bacon. Sadly, these people do not care about food.
Nor am I terribly impressed by all this whining about the reputation of the British military being under attack. If generals kept out of party politics, as their constitutional duty requires, there would be no attacks and no besmirching. Blame Generals Dannatt, Jackson and Guthrie for the unhappy state of affairs.
Meanwhile, the Evening Standard is covering the story in an interesting fashion and great detail. Its front page news article is entitled “BBC attacked from all sides in BNP storm”. Paul Waugh, the Deputy Political Editor then quotes the former Mayor, Ken Livingstone, at length. Another article refers to the opinions of Diane Abbott, a few other London MPs (unnamed but presumably Labour), the obligatory pop singers and Kawsar Zaman of the Muslim Council of Britain, that well known standard bearer of freedom and tolerance. Ahem, all sides?
On page 14 the Editorial strikes a somewhat different tone. “BNP on Question Time” – the say, - “is not the real problem.” The problem, in their opinion, is the mess that all political parties, particularly the one in government, have made over the issue of immigration (though, curiously, they do not mention the EU and its role). Let us also add, that the refusal to discuss all the ramifications of the subject help the BNP quite considerably.
Towards the back of the newspaper (opposite the page where the various crosswords and suchlike delights are) there is the usual online poll. Yesterday’s question was “Should the BBC Trust block Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time?” 17 per cent said Yes and 83 per cent said No.
I am not convinced that international socialism is really winning that battle of propaganda.
All the same, I wish they had stopped me. I was longing to ask them why they disliked the BNP’s collectivist agenda. Ah well, maybe when I go out again to head towards the BBC Russian Service where we shall be discussing … yes, you’ve guessed it …. the BNP.
So there were about two dozen all together, manning and womanning stalls and demonstrating with placards, easily outnumbered by media photographers and cameramen. The local police was gathering in numbers and the helicopters are flying as I write. Any excuse will do to play with nice toys. One can but hope that no gang killings are scheduled for this afternoon or evening.
At present, international socialism may think it is winning the propaganda battle but it is national socialism that has representatives in one or two elected assemblies and whose leader is on Question Time.
I am not convinced even about the propaganda battle. Peter Hain’s announcement that the BBC was acting illegally by inviting Nick Griffin was not only swatted aside by lawyers but was greeted with derision by the few people who were paying attention. Presumably, he was fulfilling his usual role of the pit canary. It is always our Peter who makes some outlandish pronouncement while the Labour leadership watches. If there is an outcry, he is disowned as it happened this time.
It is sad to see Conservatives getting involved in this fight and giving the BNP extra amounts of publicity in the process. Nothing British, a slightly odd organization, that is dedicated to proving that there is nothing British about the BNP even organized a breakfast this morning (a terrible idea, in my opinion) to proclaim this fact. When the invitation arrived yesterday I thought it was going to be a breakfast at which no British food was going to be served and was about to direct them towards some excellent British bacon. Sadly, these people do not care about food.
Nor am I terribly impressed by all this whining about the reputation of the British military being under attack. If generals kept out of party politics, as their constitutional duty requires, there would be no attacks and no besmirching. Blame Generals Dannatt, Jackson and Guthrie for the unhappy state of affairs.
Meanwhile, the Evening Standard is covering the story in an interesting fashion and great detail. Its front page news article is entitled “BBC attacked from all sides in BNP storm”. Paul Waugh, the Deputy Political Editor then quotes the former Mayor, Ken Livingstone, at length. Another article refers to the opinions of Diane Abbott, a few other London MPs (unnamed but presumably Labour), the obligatory pop singers and Kawsar Zaman of the Muslim Council of Britain, that well known standard bearer of freedom and tolerance. Ahem, all sides?
On page 14 the Editorial strikes a somewhat different tone. “BNP on Question Time” – the say, - “is not the real problem.” The problem, in their opinion, is the mess that all political parties, particularly the one in government, have made over the issue of immigration (though, curiously, they do not mention the EU and its role). Let us also add, that the refusal to discuss all the ramifications of the subject help the BNP quite considerably.
Towards the back of the newspaper (opposite the page where the various crosswords and suchlike delights are) there is the usual online poll. Yesterday’s question was “Should the BBC Trust block Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time?” 17 per cent said Yes and 83 per cent said No.
I am not convinced that international socialism is really winning that battle of propaganda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)